Caucasians

[general terms]

Hi I hear all the time about caucasians. I am sure you refer to White guys - Ang Mo. But Indians are also caucasian as a race. not only Indians but, arabs etc etc...what you guys think

[Guest]

North Indians belong to same Indo-European race or group, so technically same race as Caucasian. But Caucasian means all people living at north of Caucasus mount region. Some misunderstanding in termins.
Arabs belong to Semitic group as Jews. South Indians is asians.

[general terms]

How do you clearly say that north indians are caucasians. Before arayns arrive in india, there were people lived in north india. Aryans mixed with them. presently, the population in india is a mix of everything. but generally are caucasians whether it is north or south.

[Guest]

Europeans and North Indians is same language group, it's studied by language origin words. Honestly, not so easy say who is Europeans or pure Europeans, remember Nazi history.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the Human Genome Project

Editor: Darryl R. J. Macer, Ph.D.
Eubios Ethics Institute

INTRODUCTION

The Indian subcontinent comprises a vast collection of peoples with different morphological, genetic, cultural and linguistic characteristics. Investigations on the peopling of this subcontinent have been and continue to be of interest to archeologists, anthropologists, historians and human geneticists. Since data of any particular kind are often too fragmentary to enable reconstruction of a composite picture of the peopling of any large geographical area, a multi-disciplinary approach is generally taken for this purpose. Studies on genetic diversity and affinities among contemporary human populations are useful for reconstruction of the peopling of an area, which includes tracing of past population movements and identifying ancestral populations.

The paradigm underlying the reconstruction of peopling of a geographical area may be described, in a simple manner, as follows. Consider an ancestral population in a given area. With the passage of time, there is fission of this population into subpopulations. Such fissions primarily occur because of various cultural (e.g., violation of prevailing social norms by groups of people) and demographic (e.g., increase in population size beyond what is supportable by available resources) reasons. The demographic impact of such fissions, primarily population-size bottlenecks, is an increase in genetic diversity among subpopulations because of genetic drift. When such subpopulations remain isolated from one another, that is, individuals of one subpopulation do not exchange mates with other subpopulations, genetic diversification is hastened. [Fusion of populations also occurs, but is perhapsmuch less common than fission.] Admixture, that is, exchange of genes, between subpopulations increases genetic affinities. The primary forces that are barriers to admixture are cultural and linguistic differences and geographical distance. Thus, one expects genes, cultures and languages to evolve in tandem, especially for such genes that are not subjected to differential pressures of natural selection. In general, the longer two populations are separated, the larger is the genetic distance between them. Genetic distance, therefore, is a useful clock to date evolutionary history.

HISTORY, CULTURE AND MORPHOLOGY OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA: A BRIEF OUTLINE

Since historical and cultural factors play important roles is determining gene flow between populations and, consequently, in determining patterns of biological affinities, it is pertinent to discuss some broad features of the Indian society. It is known that the structure of the contemporary Indian society is quite complex with groups at widely different socio-cultural and economic levels co-existing, often in close proximity to one another. Let us briefly recall the history of India with specific reference to population movements in order to better understand the complex character of the contemporary Indian society and, in turn, to meaningfully interpret observed genetic diversities and affinities among Indian populations.

Traces of human activity can be found in India sometime between 400,000 - 200,000 B.C. (Misra, 1992). By the middle paleolithic period (50,000 - 20,000 B.C.), humans had spread to many parts of the Indian subcontinent. Neolithic (7,000 - 5,000 B.C.) settlements are numerous in India, and it appears beyond doubt (Rapson, 1955) that Austric languages are descended from the neolithic peoples. The Indus valley civilization, which began around 3000 B.C. and lasted for about 1500 years, saw flourishing trade contacts with Persian Gulf area and Mesopotemia. Although there is considerable debate (Rapson, 1955; Allchin and Allchin, 1982) whether Dravidian languages owe their origin to neolithic peoples of southern India or whether they were brought into India, there is evidence that Dravidian speakers, who included settled agriculturists, predominated both northern and southern India. During the period 1500 B.C. to about 1100 A.D., north-west and northern India turned into a melting pot. The year 1500 B.C. saw the entry of Indo-Aryan speakers from Bactria and Iran. Their entry witnessed the beginning of a long period of conflicts with and conquest of indigenous peoples. Caste system was formed soon after the entry of the Indo-Aryan speakers. During the period 800-500 B.C., iron was introduced which provided the means for large-scale expansion of the Indo-Aryan speakers into the Ganges valley. Linguistic imperialism was firmly established resulting in submergence of Austric languages. There was a large-scale recedence of indigenous peoples of the north to farther and farther south. The period 520 B.C. - 300 A.D. witnessed successive invasions by Persians, Greeks and Scythians. This was followed by invasions of central Asian nomadic tribals (Huns), Arabs and Turks until 1100 A.D. Thus, not only were there large-scale movements of peoples (invaders) with diverse genetic backgrounds into India, their entry also resulted in trade contacts with China and south-east Asia. The north-east of India also witnessed conquests, e.g., the conquest of Kamarupa (Assam) by Ahoms, a Shan people, in 1253 A.D. During this long period of turbulence and culture contacts in northern India, southern India, by and large, developed independently. However, maritime trade links also developed: during 200 B.C. - 300 A.D., Roman and south-east Asian trade flourished; during 300-700 A.D., trade with east African coast peaked; during 700-1300 A.D., flourishing trade continued with Arabs and the Semitic people. Most of these early trade settlements were confined to the port areas of coastal India, particularly in southern India. In more recent times, traders from various parts of the world arrived in India ---Portuguese (late 1950s), Dutch (early 1700s), English (1610), French (1725).

Morphologically the people of India may be broadly classified (Malhotra, 1978) into four types --- Negrito, Australoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. The Negrito element is characterized by short stature, fizzly hair, fine hair texture, brachycephalichead, dark complexion, short and protruding face, broad nose and thick and everted lips. They are now confined to the Andaman Islands and Nilgiri Hills. Some anthropologists believe that they may have had a wider distribution at one time. The Australoids are characterized by short stature (althoughtaller than the Negritos), wavy to curly hair, hyperdolichocephalic todolichocephalic head, dark complexion, stout brow ridges, sunken nasalroot and abundance of body hair. They are chiefly distributed in central and southern regions of India. The Mongoloid element in India is primarily found in the north-east and the sub-Himalayan regions of India. They haveshort stature, broad shoulder, scanty facial and body hair, brachycephalic head, flat face, prominent cheek bones, flat nose and epicanthic fold. Mostof the tribal groups of India belong to one of these three fairly distinct morphological types, although it must be emphasized that within any of these types there is a considerable amount of variability. The Caucasoid elementin India is the most widespread. They are characterized by a taller stature, dolichocephalic to brachycephalic head, light complexion, straight to wavy hair, lighter eyes, arched forehead, long face with well-developed chin,narrow and prominent nose.

[Vaucluse]

There is always a difference between theory and practise, lines are blurred by incorrect usage of terms and this, in itself, creates different and quite acceptable new meanings.
Now, not speaking from a social-anthropological standpoint, common parlance would have Singapore divided into quite easily discernible 'races':

Chinese
Indian
Malay
Eurasian (Asian mixed with European Caucasian)
Caucasian

These terms are not correct, in the context of scientific division of races, as SMS has shown.

Caucasian is originally a geographical term, meaning relative or pertaining to the Caucasus region of eastern Europe. It has in time acquired other specific meanings:

"In linguistics, the Caucasian languages are a large number of languages spoken in the Caucasus area; often specifically those that have no demonstrated relatives outside of that region, which are classified into the South, Northwest, Northeast, and North-central Caucasian language families.
in physical anthropology, the Caucasian race is meant for a specific race of Homo sapiens, sometimes given a Latin designation such as "Varietas Caucasia" (sic), which does not follow the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
in forensic anthropology and census contexts, especially in the United States, the Caucasian type is a specific combination of physical attributes, especially white skin.
in common usage and political contexts in the USA and Australia, Caucasian refers to light-complexioned people indigenous to, or descended from Europe, northern Africa, southwest Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. In North America, Caucasian usually means a white person of northern, southern, eastern, and western European descent, excluding people with significant Asian, African, or American Indian ancestry. Usage of the term "Caucasian" for "White Person" is mostly restricted to the USA and Australia. "


Btw, the Caucasus is wedged between the Black sea and the caspian Sea, which is where Chechnia is, possibly the best example, given the geo-political signifigance of that particular region.

In other words, your/our IC's are incorrect

Clear?

[Bubbs]

Cor Blimey

It's not just for slagging peeps off this forum is it???? (Just joking)

We may become the cleverest people on the web if we digest all the interesting info sometimes put on.

Thanks to the above peeps, very interesting discussion this one. Well, I think so anyway.

Do you know, it IS strange how the term 'Caucasian' is nowadays always stuck to a 'white' (as in European or American etc) way? When we all know that is so not the truth.

Bubbs.

[sapphire]

I think I'll stick to being a 'freakozoid'.

Although, that made a very interesting read SMS. Its pretty mind boggling when you go from one point of India to the other, people look different, talk different, dress different, eat different, worship different Gods and so on...

[Guest]

I think I'll stick to being a 'freakozoid'.

Although, that made a very interesting read SMS. Its pretty mind boggling when you go from one point of India to the other, people look different, talk different, dress different, eat different, worship different Gods and so on...

so?

[Indi.Lens]

Contributing another perspective to the debate here, I found these two papers from scholar.google.com that rejects the Aryan Invasion of India and supporting a more indegenous population. This might interest some of you.

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/chro.pdf

http://jies.org/Discussion/MichaelWitzel.pdf

Cheers

[Vaucluse]

Contributing another perspective to the debate here, I found these two papers from scholar.google.com that rejects the Aryan Invasion of India and supporting a more indegenous population. This might interest some of you.

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/chro.pdf

http://jies.org/Discussion/MichaelWitzel.pdf

Cheers

Not a bad reference, but Witzel argues that the differentiation between Avars and Aryans clouds the issue.

[sapphire]

I wish these historians would make up their mind!

[Indi.Lens]

http://jies.org/Discussion/MichaelWitzel.pdf

Not a bad reference, but Witzel argues that the differentiation between Avars and Aryans clouds the issue.

The author arguing against Witzel appears to clarify the Avar-Aryan issue. However, I am not much into history, archeology and related fields.

What interested me was the endless number of theories on the races of people and how the scholars debate and even fight over the theories.

Caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, australoid and any other race that may be unearthed in future, one thing remains the same. We as people are yet to come to terms with seeing all as humans with a great responsibility to co-habit this earth with other living forms.

Sorry, if I have digressed.

Cheers!

[Vaucluse]

Not dogressed at all Indi.lens - thanks for the contribution, it's been a while since I've delved into my favourite subject - hostory not etnic evolution . . . 8)

[samantha]

Erm History is like a debate and there are always 2 sides to a stoery in history, based on records. Thus it is almost impossible for historians to make up their mind...